Vår ref.: 018/2015 Deres ref.: 2015/4946 Oslo,

Transcription

1 Avfall Norge Øvre Vollgt Oslo Tlf: post@avfallnorge.no DNB NOR, konto: Organisasjonsnr. NO MVA Vår ref.: 018/2015 Deres ref.: 2015/4946 Oslo, Overskrift With a view to improving the practicability of the previous proposal and thereby also the ease of implementation of the updated waste framework and daughter directives, we offer the following proposals on the key factors of the waste framework directive which underpin its success. Above all it must not be forgotten that municipal waste is dispersed amongst many sources in a municipality. For this reason, its collection in accordance with legal requirements must be coordinated, communicated and the same level of service must be available to all citizens throughout the Member State. Waste management is a vital part of the services of general interest provided by local authorities and an important factor in the sustainable development of a municipality. The Definition of Municipal Waste: In order to be able to measure the municipal waste stream and to have a sound basis for the calculation of the recycling rate from this fraction, it is necessary to define it clearly. For this purpose and to avoid any discrepancies, Avfall Norge proposes the following definition, based on the OECD definition: Municipal waste covers waste from households, including bulky waste, construction and demolition waste from households, similar waste from commerce and trade, office buildings, institutions and small businesses, yard and garden waste, street sweepings, the contents of litter containers, and market cleansing waste. The definition excludes waste from municipal sewage networks and its treatment as well as waste from construction and demolition activities, industrial and commercial waste which is not similar to household waste. The Waste Framework Directive is based on the articles of the Treaty related to environmental protection and not to competition or the internal market, as its aim is to optimise the management of waste with a view to protecting the environment as well as promoting optimal use of the resources issuing from the waste. There is separate European legislation dedicated 1

2 to the organisation of the market (Public Procurement and Concessions Directives) which were recently revised and published in Reporting of Data: In order to complete the picture and to obtain a full and clear understanding of the size of the supply of recovered raw materials from the European waste stream, in addition to having clear definitions of all terms, it is necessary to collect data on waste quantities and sorted materials from both the municipal waste stream and the industrial and commercial waste streams. These two sets of data on recovered materials, when added together, will give the real recycling rate in Europe and form the knowledge basis for security of supply which is a prerequisite of the formation of a stable market for recycled materials. Therefore, a reporting obligation should be introduced for commercial and industrial waste quantities which are sorted and recycled. This will ensure that, regardless of whether the national definition of municipal waste includes or excludes commercial and industrial waste which is similar to household waste, the overall national figure will include both household and similar waste from other sources. The aggregation of the data on municipal waste and on industrial and commercial waste at national level and then at European level, will ensure the creation of a European data set which is harmonized and comparable. Any demand measures put in place at European level to give incentives for the uptake of recycled materials will need to be based on such reliable supply data. The Calculation Method: The point at which recycled quantities are measured should be selected for its precision and for the guarantee that the materials recovered by this point will follow on to be used in a new production cycle. In order for such a guarantee to be effective, certain conditions must be in place in daily waste management operations, which include knowledge of the quantities collected separately, sorted and baled, knowledge of the market price for each material and knowledge of the requested sale price from the sorting plant. Europe does not have a trading platform or mechanism yet which would make it clear to potential buyers what material is available, which would also bring in the element of price transparency. In its absence, the legislation needs to set these boundaries. As mentioned above, the calculation must include material quantities recovered from municipal waste and from industrial and commercial waste. This infers the reporting of waste and recycled quantities from both municipal and industrial and commercial sources (which are not similar to household waste) to properly size the market. The diagram below shows the flow of packaging waste from the different sources, through the intermediate sorting step, where necessary and into recycling. This is specifically for packaging waste but the basic elements are the same for other valuable, separately collected 2

3 waste streams. What the diagramme clearly shows is that there is a proportion of the waste from the dispersed, municipal source, which needs to go through a sorting plant to be aggregated by type and another, industrial and commercial source from which large quantities of the same material are collected and can be delivered directly to the beginning of the recycling process. The conclusion is that, in order to identify the total quantity of material collected for recycling, both sources must be added, hence the call as above for reporting by industry and commerce of their waste quantities. Adding the sorted municipal waste quantities with the industrial and commercial quantities for recycling would therefore constitute one clear measurement point, after first sorting, for recycled quantities. This point however still carries a risk that the baled recyclables will not be sold to a recycler. As a control measure, we therefore need a second measurement point, shown in the diagramme as first input to recycling. The latter carries the risk that some quantities will be shipped out of Europe, but this could be countered by matching customs codes with waste codes, to improve controls on waste shipments and include those quantities as recycled. For the latter it would be necessary to have the added requirement of certified proof that the recycled materials were treated in a non-eu recycling plant which responds to the same quality requirements as an EU plant. To conclude: Avfall Norge proposes two measurement points: after first sorting and into first recycling. To ensure that waste shipped outside of the EU for recycling is accounted for, waste codes and shipment codes should be matched. Provided the above data is collected and reported, the point of calculation for the purpose of SETTING TARGETS FOR RECYCLED QUANTITIES SHOULD BE OUTPUT OF FIRST SORTING. WASTE STATUS: There is an ongoing discussion on creating the criteria for waste to leave the waste status. Existing efforts to identify this point and quality have not been successful, as they have introduced a level of complexity that private companies do not find useful, prefering the waste status, which is simpler. In addition to that, there is the added benefit of maintaining the waste status of these materials, to the creation of a circular economy, as the added control and traceability will help to build a sound market for recyclables in Europe. If the waste status is ended too early and the recyclables are traded as products, that traceability disappears. INTERNAL MARKET FOR RECYCLING: In order to facilitate the movement of waste for recycling within Europe, the implementation of the requirements of the waste shipments regulation and the proximity principle of the waste legislation must be corrected and brought in line with the intended principles. The proximity principle is there to deter shipments across borders for disposal, not for recovery. 3

4 Extended Producer Responsibility: Avfall Norge supports the minimum requirements put forward in the 2 July 2014 proposal by the European Commission overall. There are some points that we would add in order to complete the picture, including the possibility for a Member State to opt out of Extended Producer Responsibility: There must be a clear definition of Extended Producer Responsibility in the Waste Framework Directive. The Waste Framework Directive should set the minimum definition of EPR. Precisions can be added to the daughter directives in accordance to the specificities of collecting each waste stream to which EPR is applicable. If a Member State opts to implement Extended Producer Responsibility, the following minimum requirements must be respected. Additional Minimum Requirements: To 1. Each Member State which chooses to implement Extended Producer Responsibility as part of their waste management strategy, must adopt a national framework based on the WFD definition of EPR and its minimum requirements. This framework must regulate and permit the producers schemes for all EPR streams. 2. Minimum requirements for extended producer responsibility (Annex VII as proposed on 2 July 2014) When developing and applying extended producer responsibility, Member States shall: 1. take into account the technical feasibility and economic viability and the overall environmental, human health and social impacts of recycling, respecting the need to ensure the creation of a circular economy and its proper functioning; 4

5 Reasoning: the internal market does not form a basis of this Directive. 2. ensure a clear basis for European guidance to Member States on the roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in the implementation of extended producer responsibility, including producers and importers placing goods on the market of the Union and their compliance schemes, private or public waste operators, local authorities and, where applicable, social economy actors. Member States have the obligation to clearly define these roles and responsibilities based on the guidance; 3. define measurable targets in terms of prevention, preparing for re-use, re-use, recycling and/or recovery aiming at meeting at least the existing quantitative targets laid down in the relevant Union waste legislation; 4. ensure that waste holders covered by extended producer responsibility are given the necessary information about the available collection systems; 5. establish a reporting procedure aiming at gathering data on products placed on the market and, once these products reach the end of their useful life, their collection and treatment in line with the waste hierarchy specifying material flows as appropriate; 6. ensure that financial contributions into extended producer responsibility schemes by producers or importers of products put on the Union market: 6.1. cover the cost of waste management of the entire waste stream under the extended responsibility of the producer, including separate collection and treatment (sorting and sale or energy recovery or final disposal if the material is not recyclable), adequate information to waste holders, data gathering and reporting, whereby the fact that producers cover these costs, may not in any way endanger municipal discretion for the organisation of waste collection at a Member State level. Reasoning: There is cherry-picking of the easily recyclable materials from the total stream of waste products that come under each EPR scheme. However, the producer of the waste products left in the residual waste fraction has also paid the EPR scheme (PRO) for the separate collection and treatment of their products. The term treatment is used, as there are some materials which are not recyclable and therefore will not have a market as waste materials. Their treament has also been paid for by the producer and in this case will be either waste to energy or landfilling take into account the revenues from the sales of secondary raw materials originating from waste; 6.3. are calculated as a function of the true cost of the end-of-life management of individual products placed on the Union market which are covered by the scheme; 6.4. support litter prevention and clean-up initiatives. 7. establish a recognition procedure for extended producer responsibility schemes aiming at: 5

6 7.1. ensuring the transparency of the producers schemes in terms of contributions paid by the producers, including the impact on sale prices and in terms of the impact on competitiveness and the openness to small establishments and undertakings; 7.2. defining the geographical coverage of the producers schemes; 7.3. ensuring equal treatment for domestic producers and importers; 7.4. ensuring a self-control mechanism via regular third party audits of the producers schemes in terms of both: sound financial management of the producers schemes - calculation of the entire costs per type of product; use of the funds collected and; appropriate collection and treatment of waste, control over the legality of waste shipments and quality of data and reporting; 8. define proportionate sanctions in case of non-attainment of the targets and/or non-respect of these requirements; 9. establish adequate monitoring and enforcement means, and organise a formal and regular dialogue between the actors involved. Med vennlig hilsen Nancy Strand Avfall Norge 6